Tag: Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers against Donald Trump have fallen to all-time lows, and now according to Real Clear Politics is barely holding on to a victory in the Electoral College.

Now that we have seen the collapse of the Clinton campaign the blame is starting to go around and specifically the Clinton machine and Democrats are taking their shots at an unlikely source, Gary Johnson.

Gary Johnson said a Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump presidency would be deeply flawed and shrugged off the notion that he could play spoiler in a tight presidential contest, despite fears among Democrats, in particular, that he’s snatching votes from Clinton. “The people voting for me are voting for Gary Johnson,” the Libertarian presidential contender said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” with George Stephanopoulos. “I take great pride in the fact that I am actually offering an alternative. … Fifty percent of…

NBC and MSNBC will air a forum between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump on September 7, 2016, on foreign policy and excludes Gary Johnson. Even if you are not a Gary Johnson supporter, you must admit, his voice should at the very least be heard alongside Trump and Clinton. This, especially due to Johnson’s popularity with our active armed forces (he polls better than Trump or Clinton with active military).

We feel Governor Gary Johnson should be included in the forum. If you feel the same, TAKE ACTION NOW! Share and invite your friends to this page and get them to TAKE ACTION NOW!

In a presidential campaign season featuring polarizing front-runners and infighting among Republicans and Democrats, Gary Johnson sees an opening.

That’s if more folks realize they have options outside of the country’s two juggernaut parties, says the former two-term New Mexico governor.
The Republican-turned-Libertarian got something of a pick-me-up late last month. He drew 11 percent support in a nationwide Monmouth University poll asking registered voters whom they would pick in a contest between Republican Donald Trump, Democrat Hillary Clinton and Johnson, the 63-year-old fitness freak who has climbed each continent’s tallest mountain (Everest was the biggest challenge).

Johnson joins several candidates running in the 2016 presidential election from theLibertarian Party, Republican Party, Green Party and a number of independents seeking American’s votes in the November general election. Gary Johnson is now competing for news airtime against such candidates as Republicans Donald Trumpand Jeb Bush as well as Democrats Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders and other Libertarian Party candidates. The candidates from the Republican and Democratic parties are working to win their respective primaries before the general election on November 8, 2016.

I recently conducted an unscientific survey of “everyday Democrats” (those not strongly involved in politics) to try and gauge how accurate was the polling for support of Democratic presidential candidates. Once a conversation would arise with someone identifying themselves as a Democrat, I asked them a simple question, “What is your opinion about Martin O’Malley?” Unless the person was from Maryland, invariably, I would get a near universal response of “Martin O’Malley who?”

And so it goes. The political Catch-22 system of politics in America. If a candidate does not raise enough money quickly enough, then that candidate is not seen as being viable. But often the reason a candidate does not raise enough money is because the media does not cover them fairly. Likewise, since so few people know O’Malley’s name due to media exclusion, he is not doing well in the polls.

O’Malley’s predicament is similar to what faced 2012 Libertarian Party presidential nominee, Gary Johnson. Both are interesting, qualified candidates that the public would likely love, but for one reason or another, are excluded from gaining any real traction due to media exclusion. In 2012, it was clear to anyone paying attention, which the mainstream media are paid to do, that Johnson was not only qualified but was the most interesting person to cover. His positions were also, most in line with the general American public; however, the general media refused him regular and equal coverage. The results of which, was no one knew who Johnson was and was not going to vote for him. The media failed in journalism 101 — informing the public in an unbiased fashion.

The only two people Democrats (or the general public) hears about on the Democratic side are the names of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Sanders is treated more like a gadfly than a real presidential candidate by the political media, something I am sure O’Mallley wouldn’t mind at this point as he fights to gain traction with the mainstream media. With 15 or 16 Democratic presidential candidates who have officially declared, it is hard to decide who gets coverage and who does not. But, O’Malley has been a popular Governor of Maryland since 2007, one would think he is qualified and should share equal coverage with Clinton and Sanders. But nope! The mainstream media is not having anything to do with him — evidenced by no one knowing who he is.

Sure, they’ll give O’Malley a quick five minutes here and there, but certainly not enough for people to remember his name. And name recognition is 97% of the battle to getting elected in America, or at the very least to become a final contender. Even with Bernie Sanders speaking to a crowd of 10,000 supporters last week garnering him some media coverage, it is almost as if the 2016 general election ballots have already been printed and Bernie’s name is nowhere to be found. Sorry Bernie, the media has made its choice.

Clinton, who has done everything she can to piss off the press, still remains Queen in their eyes. It seems as if there is nothing Clinton cannot do to derail their enthusiasm for her candidacy. And there is the danger. Because she gets the overwhelming bulk of media coverage on the Democratic side, she is all the public hears about, so when pollsters ask the question, Hillary’s name comes up because it is all they know.

Rather than educate the public as to who the candidates are and what they stand for, the mainstream media chooses to mention Clinton’s name far more often than any other candidate. It is the media who crowns the king.

I recently conducted an unscientific survey of “everyday Democrats” (those not strongly involved in politics) to try and gauge how accurate was the polling for support of Democratic presidential candidates. Once a conversation would arise with someone identifying themselves as a Democrat, I asked them a simple question, “What is your opinion about Martin O’Malley?” Unless the person was from Maryland, invariably, I would get a near universal response of “Martin O’Malley who?”

And so it goes. The political Catch-22 system of politics in America. If a candidate does not raise enough money quickly enough, then that candidate is not seen as being viable. But often the reason a candidate does not raise enough money is because the media does not cover them fairly. Likewise, since so few people know O’Malley’s name due to media exclusion, he is not doing well in the polls.

O’Malley’s predicament is similar to what faced 2012 Libertarian Party presidential nominee, Gary Johnson. Both are interesting, qualified candidates that the public would likely love, but for one reason or another, are excluded from gaining any real traction due to media exclusion. In 2012, it was clear to anyone paying attention, which the mainstream media are paid to do, that Johnson was not only qualified but was the most interesting person to cover. His positions were also, most in line with the general American public; however, the general media refused him regular and equal coverage. The results of which, was no one knew who Johnson was and was not going to vote for him. The media failed in journalism 101 — informing the public in an unbiased fashion.

The only two people Democrats (or the general public) hears about on the Democratic side are the names of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Sanders is treated more like a gadfly than a real presidential candidate by the political media, something I am sure O’Mallley wouldn’t mind at this point as he fights to gain traction with the mainstream media. With 15 or 16 Democratic presidential candidates who have officially declared, it is hard to decide who gets coverage and who does not. But, O’Malley has been a popular Governor of Maryland since 2007, one would think he is qualified and should share equal coverage with Clinton and Sanders. But nope! The mainstream media is not having anything to do with him — evidenced by no one knowing who he is.

Sure, they’ll give O’Malley a quick five minutes here and there, but certainly not enough for people to remember his name. And name recognition is 97% of the battle to getting elected in America, or at the very least to become a final contender. Even with Bernie Sanders speaking to a crowd of 10,000 supporters last week garnering him some media coverage, it is almost as if the 2016 general election ballots have already been printed and Bernie’s name is nowhere to be found. Sorry Bernie, the media has made its choice.

Clinton, who has done everything she can to piss off the press, still remains Queen in their eyes. It seems as if there is nothing Clinton cannot do to derail their enthusiasm for her candidacy. And there is the danger. Because she gets the overwhelming bulk of media coverage on the Democratic side, she is all the public hears about, so when pollsters ask the question, Hillary’s name comes up because it is all they know.

Rather than educate the public as to who the candidates are and what they stand for, the mainstream media chooses to mention Clinton’s name far more often than any other candidate. It is the media who crowns the king.

Democrats Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders served in the U.S. Senate together and are now seeking to win the Democratic Party’s primary for the 2016 presidential race. Sanders is still in the Senate and served with Clinton during her tenure, from 2007 through 2009. Yesterday, May 27, 2015, Derek Willis of the New York Times sifted through the voting records of the two and came to the realization, their voting record is nearly one and the same. They voted the same 93 percent of the time while together in the U.S. Senate. Their ideology is nearly identical on economic and domestic issues.

It exposes the political theater one may expect from career politicians who try to make themselves seem different in the public eye, but are truly political soulmates. It also exposes the scripted narrative many media sources extend to the establishment campaigns. It is through their voting history one can get a true idea of how they plan to govern in the future should one of them become President of the United States. Perhaps we can get past the campaign rhetoric of focus on how the two voted while in office.

They both agree on same-sex marriage, increased gun control laws, pro-choice on abortion, legally forcing businesses to the hiring of a certain ratio of women and minorities, supportive of Obamacare, oppose the privatization of Social Security, oppose school choice, feels higher-income Americans should pay more in taxes, feel that the U.S. should stay out of Iran, supports subsidizing “green energy” projects and do not feel marijuana should be legal in the United States.